History

A church built like a patchwork time capsule.

This is Surb Gevorg (St. George) in Ayrk, Gegharkunik (Armenia)—a small 13th-century “Katoghike” church where khachkars (cross-stones) are literally set into the walls like carved signatures from different centuries.

Look closely:… pic.twitter.com/QYZkquhREA

— Architecture & Art (@archpng) March 14, 2026

 

An Insight

“Yes, the introduction to this dissent intentionally uses indecorous language. But that is quite literally what this case is about… The fact that so many on our court want to pretend that this case is about anything other than swinging dicks is the very reason the shocking… https://t.co/8FKjzaAcxY

— Ilya Shapiro (@ishapiro) March 13, 2026

 

I see wonderful things

The Art Nouveau staircase inside the Reök Palace in Szeged, Hungary. pic.twitter.com/MHMMp1hk8X

— HerodotusWave (@HerodotusWave) March 16, 2026

 

Offbeat Humor

This is the difference between water and beer pic.twitter.com/774h94jYJr

— Jesus Chrysler (@JesusChryslerII) March 13, 2026

 

Data Talks

In order to compete at the Oscars for Best Picture, all films must meet the "diversity inclusion" quota.

Here are those rules. Yes, this is real. pic.twitter.com/2FQR5Kh4zx

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) March 16, 2026

 

The Lament for Icarus, 1898 by Herbert James Draper

The Lament for Icarus, 1898 by Herbert James Draper (England, 1863-1920)

Click to enlarge.

Rules and Public Trust

From Eight Rules to Regain Public Trust in Academia by Kevin A. Bryan.  

1. Produce and Teach Useful Knowledge

Universities exist to generate and teach useful knowledge. This knowledge is grounded in skeptical inquiry, empirical evidence, and logical deduction. “Useful” includes not only practical applications but also fundamental discoveries that expand our understanding of the world, even if their benefits are long-term.

2. Be Useful to All of Society

Universities are subsidized only if society at large finds them valuable. Research may take time to bear fruit, but its insights should ultimately serve the public good, communicated openly and accessibly, and presented with epistemic humility. Teaching should be done with care and draw on up-to-date research.

3. Attract Talent from All of Society

Useful knowledge can be created by people from any social or economic background. Do not waste talent. Do not select talent based on who knows “how to play the game”. Avoid insular language or norms that deter people from entering research.

4. Neutral, Objective Research Produces Useful Knowledge

Research must be neutral and objective. It is true that everyone has their individual background and preferences; nonetheless, unbiased research is still possible. Tradition, folk knowledge, and storytelling all play an important roles in society, but they are not the purpose of universities. There is no “Western science” or culturally-determined “ways of knowing”. Rather, research is open to all and can be performed identically regardless of background.

5. Hire, Promote, and Cite Based on Knowledge Contribution

Hiring, promotion, and citation must be based on an individual’s contribution to knowledge. Nepotism, group preferences, and adherence to specific “schools of thought” corrupt this process. When advancement is not based on merit, the public rightly questions our integrity and the objectivity of our findings.

6. Keep Personal Views Out of Research and Teaching

A scholar’s personal politics should be invisible in their research and teaching. If a finding is predictable based on the author’s identity or known views, the process has failed. Objectivity is the hallmark of credible science. Academics may hold private beliefs like anyone else, but their academic work must stand apart from them.

7. Research Fraud is Unacceptable

Fraud destroys trust. Misrepresentation of results, selective reporting, or methods designed to publish rather than to discover are also harmful. Proven fraud must bring immediate dismissal, as it violates the core purpose of academia.

8. Scientific Institutions Should Be Apolitical

Universities, journals, and scientific societies must remain non-partisan. Their public statements must be rare, restricted to issues of direct expert consensus, and made only when silence would be a greater threat to their integrity than speaking. Activism sacrifices credibility for influence – or worse yet, sacrifices credibility and influence alike.

To which, Alex Tabarrok would add

9. Grades must be objective and useful discriminators of talent.

With a little reinterpretation, these are just good rules for trust.

But it was also unfamiliar.

A kind of chaotic article from the NYT.  A Year After U.S.A.I.D.’s Death, Fired Workers Find Few Jobs and Much Loss by Elisabeth Bumiller and Eileen Sullivan.  The subheading is People have plowed through savings, cashed out retirement funds and moved in with relatives. Former U.S.A.I.D. workers estimate that less than half have found full-time work.

The core argument for the closing of USAID was that we spent a lot of money to very little measurable effect.  The counter-argument was that it was soft-power and while the benefits could not be measured, the consequences would be catastrophic.  

A year later and the jury is still out.  Even in this sob-story article, they acknowledge:

Others acknowledged that there was bloat and waste in the agency and a need for reform. Much of the $35 billion it managed in 2024 went to Washington-based contractors, not directly to people in need overseas. The success of many projects was hard to measure.

Bumiller and Sullivan are focused on hard the experience has been on the most experienced and highest paid members of USAID management.  I doubt that was quite the argument they intended to make but looking at who they interviewed, the most experienced and highest paid members of USAID management, that it is what they ended up with.  One might assume that those below the top level may have had an easier time finding work based just on what is presented.

It is worth stipulating that all unexpected change can be traumatic on individuals, even if it leads to better things and especially if not.

In the comments there are all the arguments one might expect.  Horrible Trump and Musk.  Useless USAID.  Entitled execs and contractors sponging off the taxes of hard-working Americans.  Money spent with nothing to show for it.  Nobody deserves such hardships.  And on and on.

What struck me was the patent bubble-insularity of Washington.  Something which is well-known but on ready display here.  Time and again, in different words, there is the same regret.  People are sorry they can't continue doing what they enjoyed doing even though people might not have wanted to pay for it and even though there was nothing to show for it.  

The other thing which struck me was more fundamental.  

Nothing being described is unfamiliar to those in the open market.  It was in part traumatic to the USAID employees because they were unfamiliar with the experience of loss and change which everyone else routinely experience.

There is a systems issue which goes by many different names.  In a dynamic environment, systems evolve and adapt.  Some constantly evolve and adapt, making thousands of small adjustments all the time.  Other systems evolve and stabilize.  They cease to adapt until some external event occurs which disrupts everything and forces dramatic and traumatic change.

Some call that punctuated equilibrium.  I like it to geological movement and living on a dynamic plate system.  Do you want the inconvenience of the ground slipping fractions of an inch at a time with thousands of tiny almost unnoticeable quakes or do you want to live in a zone where there is no movement for a century and then there is a massive slip of ten feet.  In both cases, there was always going to be a movement of ten feet.  Do you want it in small incremental but constant changes or in one big event?

The competitive market is like that.  That which cannot continue won't.  Companies are always changing given changes in consumer demand and fancy, changes among competitors, in technology, in supply chains, regulations, etc.  Change is constant and companies have to adapt.  Usually through a thousand small adjustments and occasionally in big events (mergers, closure of a business, etc.)  

In government spheres, where exposure to consequences is more muted and famously, government programs are the closest thing to immortality we can know, there is only the catastrophic change.  Interestingly, in the comments to the article, there are voices arguing that changes was needed, had been needed for decades, but that abolition was the wrong solution.  We should have waited more years without the needed change.  

The stories in the article are perfectly familiar because we all know people who have experienced this sort of thing.  We know many people who have experienced.  Some more than once in their lifetime.  It is tragic and familiar.  

The loss of their livelihoods for the USAID executives was similarly tragic for them.  But it was also unfamiliar.

History

Photographs of veterans of Napoleon's army wearing their original uniforms and insignia, taken in 1858, 37 years after the emperor's death in 1821, when these old soldiers were well into their 70s and 80s. pic.twitter.com/9TlOpzre3i

— 📜Echoes of Empire📜 (@EchoesofEmpire_) March 14, 2026

 

An Insight

Fantastic interview with Israeli intelligence analyst, Shmuel Bar, by Hannah Gal for @Quillette https://t.co/EBQfTOGhZl pic.twitter.com/ncXf9tSDze

— Claire Lehmann (@clairlemon) March 14, 2026